Criticism of the Swedish Enforcement Authority for having acted in contravention of the principle of objectivity in connection with an executive procedure

Summary of the decision: In order to pay a debtor’s debts, the Swedish Enforcement Authority carried out an enforcement procedure at his home. At this time, two executive officials informed him that the purpose of the procedure was to search for the trailer of which he was the registered owner. The executive officials left when he informed them that he intended to pay his debt. When they returned later that day the debtor had paid his debt, yet they still seized the trailer, but for his cohabiting partner’s debts.

It is established that, on their first visit, the executive officials did not inform the debtor that his partner had also been reported to the Swedish Enforcement Authority for arrears and that the authority had coordinated the investigation into their assets. It was only on the second visit that he was informed of this.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that she understands that the debtor believed that the trailer would not be seized if he paid his debt immediately, and that he felt that the executive officials had improperly induced him to pay his debt. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the executive officials should have informed the debtor on their first visit that the trailer could still be attached to pay his partner’s debts if the conditions for doing so were fulfilled.

The risk that others may perceive that objectivity and impartiality are not being observed is sufficient for an authority’s actions to be considered to contravene the principle of objectivity set out in Article 9 of Chapter 1 of the Instrument of Government (SFS 1974:152). The Parliamentary Ombudsman cannot therefore reach any conclusion other than that the executive officials’ actions on their first visit contravened this principle. The Swedish Enforcement Authority is criticised for this and for the fact that the first visit was not documented.